From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,35ed85a9d92a025
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ted Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: Ada-95 for numerics?
Date: 1996/04/01
Message-ID: <316005FE.204F@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 145229983
references: <4jocek$h5h@rigel.rz.uni-ulm.de>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Marine Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.01 9000/750)
Date: 1996-04-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Joerg Rodemann wrote:
> 
> I tested the following languages/compilers:
> 
>    3.) Ada-95:
>        Compilers: GNAT 3.01/gcc-2.7.2
...
> This were the results:
> 
>    4.) The Ada-95 version was about a factor of 6 slower than the other ones.

You mean the "GNAT version". Just because your one Ada-95 compiler was 
slow says nothing about the language.

BTW: The other compilers you mentioned are all more "mature" than
GNAT. This means they have had way more time to work on optimizations.

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |